Resistance and Resilience of Nine Plant Species to Drought in Inner Mongolia Temperate Grasslands of Northern China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript focuses on the effects of drought stress on the nine plant species in inner-Mongolia in China. The manuscript may indicate important information for vegetation management against the global level warming and drought. I think, however, this manuscript is not yet complete to submit to the Journal, because I found many mistakes and insufficient descriptions.
I think that there are serious problems in this manuscript. Authors showed the results of the Peason’s correlation coefficient in Figure 4. But there is no description about the methodology to estimate the leaf and root biomass, and the results of the biomass estimation. Not only biomass estimation, there is no description about the methodology to measure the specific leaf area (SLA), root length and the depth. Additionally, no explanation of the leaf biomass ratio (LBR), root biomass ratio (RBR), response ratio of coverage to drought under the stress (RRCD), response of abundance to drought under the stress (RRAD). It is unclear the denominator of these ratio. I can not evaluate this manuscript without the information of the methodology and the results. And there is no Table shown the results of soil temperature and the moisture although authors mentioned the results from data in Table 1 (L142-150). Please read your manuscript carefully and add the additional information and revise the wrong descriptions.
I would like to ask authors whether you have the data before the drought treatment or not. If you have the data, you should show it. Then, you can use the words of ‘increase’ and ‘decrease’ for the results of coverage and abundance after the treatment. But it is difficult to use the words if you don’t have data. You can only compare the difference between the treatments. Authors showed the difference on coverage and abundance between control and drought treatment, but it is not clear the reason. It has possibility the reasons from site differences.
In Discussion, authors discussed the phenomena in drought treatments. But I could not find the data in the ‘Results’, Figures and the Tables (L230-234, L239-240, L250-252, L260-263). Authors should show the data in ‘Results’, Figure and Table, and discuss with the data.
Authors showed the results of drought treatment on 12th July, 21st July, 2nd August and 8th August (Figure 1, 2 and 3). But there is no description about the difference or fluctuation during the treatment in this manuscript. If you show these data, it is needed to describe the result in the manuscript. Although authors indicated the difference with the values of percentage between control and drought treatment (L165, L169, L177-178), it is not clear that which values were selected on the comparison (12th July, 21st July, 2nd August, 8th August, or the average values of 4 times measurements?).
It is unclear the statistical analysis, especially in Table 1. Is it correct to show the results of statistical analysis? For example, it was shown as ‘0.96±0.30a’ and ‘0.43±0.20a’ in the coverage of Petunia Altai. If there is no significant difference between the treatment, this notation is not appropriate. And I cannot judge whether there is significant difference between the treatments from the results of ‘P<0.10’ (L200). Additionally, authors mentioned ‘The abundance of Petunia Altai was significantly lower in the drought plots than it in the control plots (P < 0.05, Table 1). No difference in coverage and abundance of other species was found between control and drought treatment (P > 0.05, Table 1)’ (L200-203). But other description said ‘the abundance of Dontostemon dentatus Ledeb in the recovery period under drought treatment was significantly higher than that in the control’ (L263-264). Which description is wrong? I think authors confuse the result in Table 1. Please confirm the results.
Authors said ‘The increase of cover or abundance of the three species may be attributed to the less competition for nutrient among species resulted from loss of community cover and density under drought.’ (L243-246). Is it sure? These species showed higher coverage and abundance in drought treatment than that of control. But the values were smaller than other species (for example, compare with Cleistogenes squarrosa). Please reconsider the results.
I could not find the species of ‘Petunia Altai’ in several plant species database on website. And there is no description of this species in ‘Materials and Methods’. Although Heteropappus altaicus is selected in this study (Materials and Methods), there is no description about this species in ‘Results’ and ‘Discussion’. Which species was used in this experiment?
Authors showed ‘recovery stage (or period)’. But there is no description when the measurement had been conducted for the period. If there is no description about it, I could not evaluate whether the period was appropriate or not. Please write the date.
Authors said ‘Petunia Altai still not recovered in the first year after the disturbance’ (L252). I wondered this description. Because the results showed the coverage and abundance of Petunia Altai was higher in drought treatment than that of control. It is unclear the meaning of ‘disturbance’. Did it occur disturbance in the plots by drought treatment? And it is unclear the meaning of ‘recovery’. I really confused it.
When authors describe the species name, you described not only species name, but also specific name. It is necessary to describe species name and specific name in the first description. After that, it is not necessary to describe the specific name. For example, the first description should be ‘Potentilla bifurca Linn’. After the description, the species name should be described as ‘Potentilla bifurca’ or ‘P. bifurca’.
Authors said ‘Soil temperature showed strong temporal variation (P < 0.001, Table 1), with the highest value (24.6°C) and the lowest value (22.5 °C) appearing in 2th August and 8th August in the control plot, respectively.’ (L142-143). I don’t agree with this description. I think the maximum soil temperature was shown on 8th August (Figure 1). Please confirm your data.
No description about ‘D’ in the legend in Figure 1b.
The number of ‘1’ should be delete from ‘±1SE’ (L160)
A word of ‘There’ should be deleted from the sentence (L230）
‘Recovery’ should be ‘recovery’ (L271)
The publication of ‘27. Liu, Y.; Zhao, C.; Guo, J.; Zhang, L.; You, C.’ was published in 2021. Please confirm it.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: This manuscript focuses on the effects of drought stress on the nine plant species in inner-Mongolia in China. The manuscript may indicate important information for vegetation management against the global level warming and drought. I think, however, this manuscript is not yet complete to submit to the Journal, because I found many mistakes and insufficient descriptions.
Response 1：Thanks for the comments, we have revised our MS and add some details following the all comments.
Point 2: I think that there are serious problems in this manuscript. Authors showed the results of the Peason’s correlation coefficient in Figure 4. But there is no description about the methodology to estimate the leaf and root biomass, and the results of the biomass estimation. Not only biomass estimation, there is no description about the methodology to measure the specific leaf area (SLA), root length and the depth. Additionally, no explanation of the leaf biomass ratio (LBR), root biomass ratio (RBR), response ratio of coverage to drought under the stress (RRCD), response of abundance to drought under the stress (RRAD). It is unclear the denominator of these ratio. I can not evaluate this manuscript without the information of the methodology and the results. And there is no Table shown the results of soil temperature and the moisture although authors mentioned the results from data in Table 1 (L142-150). Please read your manuscript carefully and add the additional information and revise the wrong descriptions.
Response 2：Thanks for the comments. We have revised the methods, and add more details for the data collection method following the above comments. (Lines 146-176 of the current manuscript)
Point 3: I would like to ask authors whether you have the data before the drought treatment or not. If you have the data, you should show it. Then, you can use the words of ‘increase’ and ‘decrease’ for the results of coverage and abundance after the treatment. But it is difficult to use the words if you don’t have data. You can only compare the difference between the treatments. Authors showed the difference on coverage and abundance between control and drought treatment, but it is not clear the reason. It has possibility the reasons from site differences.
Response 3：Thanks for the valuable comments. We acknowledge that we did not have the data before the drought treatment. However, we have used a paired design in the experiment, the distance between each pair of plots was only 2 m. In addition, we have selected the plots following the rule “The abundance and coverage data of each target species in the same pair of plots are basically the same” to make sure the change of the variables was induced by drought. So ‘increase’ and ‘decrease’ is ok in our MS.
Point 4: In Discussion, authors discussed the phenomena in drought treatments. But I could not find the data in the ‘Results’, Figures and the Tables (L230-234, L239-240, L250-252, L260-263). Authors should show the data in ‘Results’, Figure and Table, and discuss with the data.
Response 4：We have added the R2 and P value in the result, and added figure label in this sentence to make it clearer.
Point 5: Authors showed the results of drought treatment on 12th July, 21st July, 2nd August and 8thAugust (Figure 1, 2 and 3). But there is no description about the difference or fluctuation during the treatment in this manuscript. If you show these data, it is needed to describe the result in the manuscript. Although authors indicated the difference with the values of percentage between control and drought treatment (L165, L169, L177-178), it is not clear that which values were selected on the comparison (12th July, 21st July, 2nd August, 8th August, or the average values of 4 times measurements?).
Response 5：Thanks for the valuable comments. We have reanalyzed the data, but cover and abundance of all species did not vary with date. The effect of drought on cover or abundance did not vary with date, too. We calculated the effect magnitude with the average values. We have added these details in the MS.
Point 6: It is unclear the statistical analysis, especially in Table 1. Is it correct to show the results of statistical analysis? For example, it was shown as ‘0.96±0.30a’ and ‘0.43±0.20a’ in the coverage of Petunia Altai. If there is no significant difference between the treatment, this notation is not appropriate. And I cannot judge whether there is significant difference between the treatments from the results of ‘P<0.10’ (L200). Additionally, authors mentioned ‘The abundance of Petunia Altai was significantly lower in the drought plots than it in the control plots (P < 0.05, Table 1). No difference in coverage and abundance of other species was found between control and drought treatment (P > 0.05, Table 1)’ (L200-203). But other description said ‘the abundance of Dontostemon dentatus Ledeb in the recovery period under drought treatment was significantly higher than that in the control’ (L263-264). Which description is wrong? I think authors confuse the result in Table 1. Please confirm the results.
Response 6：Thanks for the valuable recommendation. The notable was actually incorrect for the abundance, and we have revised “4.00±2.40a” to ‘4.00±2.40b’. For the cover of Heteropappus altaicus (Petunia Altai in the first version), it did not differ between the two treatments. So ‘0.96±0.30a’ and ‘0.43±0.20a’is OK. “The abundance of Dontostemon dentatus in the recovery period under drought treatment was significantly higher than that in the control” in the discussion section is a mistake, because the number of replications for Dontostemon dentatus was too small to meet the basic requirements of analysis. We have deleted the wrong discussion. (Lines 190-191 of the current manuscript)
Point 7: Authors said ‘The increase of cover or abundance of the three species may be attributed to the less competition for nutrient among species resulted from loss of community cover and density under drought.’ (L243-246). Is it sure? These species showed higher coverage and abundance in drought treatment than that of control. But the values were smaller than other species (for example, compare with Cleistogenes squarrosa). Please reconsider the results.
Response 7：What we want to say is “The increase of the coverage and abundance of these species under drought treatment may also be due to the decrease of the overall density and coverage of plant communities under drought stress, which reduces the overall demand of nutrients for plant community, and reduces the restriction of nutrients and other resources on plant communities. The species with strong resistance to water stress may become more advantageous when resource limitation is reduced.” We have revised it. (Lines 303-309 of the current manuscript)
Point 8: I could not find the species of ‘Petunia Altai’ in several plant species database on website. And there is no description of this species in ‘Materials and Methods’. Although Heteropappus altaicus is selected in this study (Materials and Methods), there is no description about this species in ‘Results’ and ‘Discussion’. Which species was used in this experiment?
Response 8：Thanks for the valuable recommendation. We had selected the Heteropappus altaicus in this study and we have revised the species name in our manuscript.
Point 9: Authors showed ‘recovery stage (or period)’. But there is no description when the measurement had been conducted for the period. If there is no description about it, I could not evaluate whether the period was appropriate or not. Please write the date.
Response 9：Thanks for your comments, we had added the detail in the Materials and methods. (Lines 103-113 of the current manuscript)
Point 10: Authors said ‘Petunia Altai still not recovered in the first year after the disturbance’ (L252). I wondered this description. Because the results showed the coverage and abundance of Petunia Altai was higher in drought treatment than that of control. It is unclear the meaning of ‘disturbance’. Did it occur disturbance in the plots by drought treatment? And it is unclear the meaning of ‘recovery’. I really confused it.
Point 11: When authors describe the species name, you described not only species name, but also specific name. It is necessary to describe species name and specific name in the first description. After that, it is not necessary to describe the specific name. For example, the first description should be ‘Potentilla bifurca Linn’. After the description, the species name should be described as ‘Potentilla bifurca’ or ‘P. bifurca’.
Response 11：Thanks for your comments and we have revised the species name in the MS.
Point 12: Authors said ‘Soil temperature showed strong temporal variation (P < 0.001, Table 1), with the highest value (24.6°C) and the lowest value (22.5 °C) appearing in 2th August and 8th August in the control plot, respectively.’ (L142-143). I don’t agree with this description. I think the maximum soil temperature was shown on 8th August (Figure 1). Please confirm your data.
Point 13: No description about ‘D’ in the legend in Figure 1b.
Response 13：Revised it. (Lines 196 of the current manuscript)
Point 14: The number of ‘1’ should be delete from ‘±1SE’ (L160)
Response 14：Revised it. (Lines 199 of the current manuscript)
Point 15: A word of ‘There’ should be deleted from the sentence (L230）
Response 15：Revised it.
Point 16: ‘Recovery’ should be ‘recovery’ (L271)
Response 16：Revised it. (Lines 342 of the current manuscript)
Point 17: The publication of ‘27. Liu, Y.; Zhao, C.; Guo, J.; Zhang, L.; You, C.’ was published in 2021. Please confirm it.
Response 17：Revised it. (Lines 31 of the current manuscript)
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled Resistance and resilience of nine plant species to drought in Inner Mongolia temperate grasslands of northern China seems to be an interesting study regarding the capability to survive selected plant species upon drought. Unfortunately, this study includes some incomplete descriptions of the methodological issue, especially in terms of the fully random field experiment. Authors should explain in a more detailed way the preparation of the experiments. The soil parameters determination should be more precisely described in terms of the soil moisture determination (It should be written in a short paragraph how is the type of the measurement system e.g. TDR?). The other concern regards soil temperature monitoring. It should be written how the temperature was measured in the layer 0-10 cm. It was the average? Nevertheless, the applied Licor apparatus indicates that the measurements were more advanced than those reported in the manuscript. Generally, the section "Materials and methods" need clarification and improvements. In its present form, this section seems to be incomplete.
The results section should be written once again. The authors, refer to table 1 (line 142) reporting the meteorological issues in the text. However, this table includes only information about plant coverage and abundance. It seems to be strange that the study focusing on the drought problems does not include any meteorological data (temperature, precipitation). This for sure should be corrected before publication.
Section 3.4 refers to the information which was earlier not described in the materials and methods (RRCD, RRAD, LBR,...).
Fig 5 refers to the main research achievements nevertheless it could be appropriate to explain the meaning of the "changes of cover".
I suggest that this manuscript is not accepted for publication in its present form. Nevertheless, after strong major revision, it can be processed in the AS as a potential publication.
Author Response
Point 1: The manuscript entitled Resistance and resilience of nine plant species to drought in Inner Mongolia temperate grasslands of northern China seems to be an interesting study regarding the capability to survive selected plant species upon drought. Unfortunately, this study includes some incomplete descriptions of the methodological issue, especially in terms of the fully random field experiment. Authors should explain in a more detailed way the preparation of the experiments. The soil parameters determination should be more precisely described in terms of the soil moisture determination (It should be written in a short paragraph how is the type of the measurement system e.g. TDR?). The other concern regards soil temperature monitoring. It should be written how the temperature was measured in the layer 0-10 cm. It was the average? Nevertheless, the applied Licor apparatus indicates that the measurements were more advanced than those reported in the manuscript. Generally, the section "Materials and methods" need clarification and improvements. In its present form, this section seems to be incomplete.
Response 1: Thanks for the helpful comments. We have added some details for the soil parameters determination. In addition, soil temperature was determined at the depth of 10cm, not 0-10cm. It’s a mistake. We have revised it. (Lines 116-126 of the current manuscript)
Point 2: The results section should be written once again. The authors, refer to table 1 (line 142) reporting the meteorological issues in the text. However, this table includes only information about plant coverage and abundance. It seems to be strange that the study focusing on the drought problems does not include any meteorological data (temperature, precipitation). This for sure should be corrected before publication.
Response 2: We are sorry for such a careless mistake. We have revised “table 1” to “Fig. 1a” (Lines 181,186 of the current manuscript)
Point 3: Section 3.4 refers to the information which was earlier not described in the materials and methods (RRCD, RRAD, LBR,...).
Response 3: Thanks for the helpful comments. We have added some details in the materials and methods as “Six plant functional traits including height, specific leaf area, root length, leaf biomass ratio, root shoot ratio, and root biomass ratio were measured in the experiment to determine which functional trait regulating the response of cover and abundance to drought. Ten individuals of each plant species were selected in the natural steppe outside the plots. Canopy height of each individuals measured with a ruler. Specific leaf area was calculated as the fresh leaf area divided by leaf dry mass. Mature and fully developed leaves in the middle part of each plant were collected, and immediately scanned to calculate fresh leaf area, subsequently oven-dried for 48 h at 65 °C, and weighed as leaf dry mass with an electronic balance with a minimum range of 0.1 mg. All selected plants were dug out while maintaining root integrity. Lengths of the main root for dicotyledonous plant and longest root of a monocotyledonous plant was measured as the root length. Leaf biomass ratio was calculated as the ratio of the biomass of all leaves to the biomass of the whole plant. Root shoot ratio was calculated as the ratio of the biomass for the belowground parts to the aboveground parts of the whole plant. Root biomass ratio was calculated as the ratio of the biomass of all roots to the biomass of the whole plant. (Lines 146-161 of the current manuscript)
Point 4: Fig 5 refers to the main research achievements nevertheless it could be appropriate to explain the meaning of the "changes of cover".
Response 4: We have added some details as “Changes of cover (or abundance) means the relative difference of cover (or abundance) between the drought and control plots.” to make it clearer. (Lines 263-264 of the current manuscript)
Reviewer 3 Report
Revise the manuscript taking all the suggestions/modifications into account before final submission.
Thoroughly check the manuscript for typos and grammatical mistakes.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: Line 32: Deleted “will be occurred”.
Response 1: Done.
Point 2: Line 34: Replace of “water stress” with “water deficit”.
Response 2: Done. (Lines 34 of the current manuscript)
Point 3: Line 34: Replace of “stress” with “scarcity”.
Response 3: Done. (Lines 34 of the current manuscript)
Point 4: Line 36: Replace of “approved” with “recognized”.
Response 4: Done. (Lines 35 of the current manuscript)
Point 5: Line 40: Replace of “large amount” with “huge”.
Response 5: Done. (Lines 40 of the current manuscript)
Point 6: Line 42: Replace of “increases” with “increase”.
Response 6: Done. (Lines 42 of the current manuscript)
Point 7: Line 45: Replace of “area” with “areas”.
Response 7: Done. (Lines 45 of the current manuscript)
Point 8: Line 46: Replace of “of growth under the different moisture condition” with “between plant growth and moisture status”.
Response 8: Done. (Lines 46 of the current manuscript)
Point 9: Line 47: Replace of “environment” with “condition or stress”.
Response 9: Done. (Lines 47 of the current manuscript)
Point 10: Line 47: “Some studies have shown that the responses of species to different degree of drought” “Doesn't make any sense...rewrite”.
Response 10: Thanks for your comments, we have revised this sentence as followed: “Some studies have shown that the responses of species plants to different degree of drought were species-specific”. (Lines 47-48 of the current manuscript)
Point 11: Line 59: Deleted “the”.
Response 11: Done.
Point 12: Line 68: “disturbance”. “Which disturbance...be specific”.
Response 12: Thanks for your comments and we have replaced “disturbance” to “drought”. (Lines 68 of the current manuscript)
Point 13: Line 73: Replace of “recovery” with “recovery process”.
Response 13: Done. (Lines73 of the current manuscript)
Point 14: Line 76: Deleted “it”.
Response 14: Done.
Point 15: Line 79: “grasslands”. “Introduce the grassland first”.
Response 15: Thanks for your comments, we have introduced the grassland in the Introduction sections. (Lines 80-82 of the current manuscript).
Point 16: Line 86: Replace of “test” with “tested”.
Response 16: Done. (Lines 87 of the current manuscript)
Point 17: Line 86: Replace of “1) How” with “i) how”.
Response 17: Done. (Lines 88 of the current manuscript)
Point 18: Line 87: Replace of “2) Which” with “ii) which”.
Response 18: Done. (Lines 89 of the current manuscript)
Point 19: Line 103: Replace of “D)” with “(D)”.
Response 19: Done. (Lines 104 of the current manuscript)
Point 20: Line103: “since June 20th to August 30th 2013”. “What does it mean?”.
Response 20: We have revised the sentence in the section of experimental design. (Lines 104-106 of the current manuscript)
Point 21: Line 106: Deleted “were used”.
Response 21: Done.
Point 22: Line 117: Replace of “in” with “on”.
Response 22: Done. (Lines 131 of the current manuscript)
Point 23: Line 143: Replace of “in” with “on”.
Response 23: Done. (Lines 182 of the current manuscript)
Point 24: Line 148: Replace of “in” with “on”.
Response 24: Done. (Lines 187 of the current manuscript)
Point 25: Line 159: Replace of “in the” with “on”.
Response 25: Done. (Lines 198 of the current manuscript)
Point 26: Line 162: Replace of “plant” with “plant species”.
Response 26: Done. (Lines 201 of the current manuscript)
Point 27: Line 191: Replace of “Peason” with “Pearson”.
Response 27: Done. (Lines 234 of the current manuscript)
Point 28: Line 199: Replace of “it” with “that”.
Response 28: Done. (Lines 242 of the current manuscript)
Point 29: Line 201: Replace of “it” with “that”.
Response 29: Done. (Lines 244 of the current manuscript)
Point 30: Line 213: Replace of “experiment” with “experimental”.
Response 30: Done. (Lines 242 of the current manuscript)
Point 31: Line 228: “but did not affect the coverage and abundance on Agropyron cristatum, Stipa kiylovii, and Cleistogenes squarrosa”. “Why was this happened? explain/discuss”.
Response 31: We have added some details in Discussion section to explain the reason. (Lines 271-298 of the current manuscript)
Point 32: Line 230: Replace of “The” with “the”.
Response 32: We have revised the original sentence. (Lines 293 of the current manuscript)
Point 33: Line 235: “deeper depth”. “??”.
Response 33: We have replaced the “relative deep root depth” to “deeper depth”. (Lines 296 of the current manuscript)
Point 34: Line 240: Replace of “in” with “among”.
Response 34: Done. (Lines 299 of the current manuscript)
Point 35: Line 263: “In addition, the abundance of Dontostemon dentatus Ledeb in the recovery period under drought treatment was significantly higher than that in the control, but the abundance of Dontostemon dentatus Ledeb accounted for a small proportion in the plots and were annual plants with great heterogeneity”. “This is result, not discussion”.
Response 35: Thanks for your comments and we have deleted it following this comment and another reviewer’s comments.
Point 36: Line 270: “Conclusion”. “Add the limitations of the present study (if any) and suggestions for future study”.
Response 36: we have added " However, we admit that only 9 species and a few functional traits were selected in this study, and only a short-term experiment was carried out. Therefore, more species and more traits need to be selected, more long-term research need to be conducted in the future to further explore the relationship between functional traits and plant drought resistance. " (Lines 346-351 of the current manuscript)
Point 37: Line 273: Replace of “Recovery” with “recovery”.
Response 37: Done. (Lines 342 of the current manuscript)
Reviewer 4 Report
Please address the following comments first:
1- On the head of the paper, specify which type of the paper (article, or review)?
2- The abstract requires quantified results
3- Lines 35 and 40 require more references related to water scarcity and drought in arid and semi-arid regions. For help, you can use the following references:
- https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070952
- https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20147
- http://dx.doi.org/10.32604/phyton.2022.018552
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107122
4- Figure 5 needs to be more coherent, for example, the label looks larger than the symbols
5- The discussion looks weak, try to improve it using the following hints:
- Summarize the key findings in clear and concise language
- Acknowledge when a hypothesis may be incorrect
- Place your study within the context of previous studies
- Discuss potential future research
- Provide the reader with a “take-away” statement to end the manuscript.
6- Add future directions at the end of the conclusion
Author Response
Point 1: 1- On the head of the paper, specify which type of the paper (article, or review)?
Response 1：Revised it. (Lines 1 of the current manuscript)
Point 2: 2- The abstract requires quantified results
Response 2：Thanks for your comments and we added the quantified results in the Abstract sections. (Lines 18-20 of the current manuscript)
Point 3: 3- Lines 35 and 40 require more references related to water scarcity and drought in arid and semi-arid regions. For help, you can use the following references:
- https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070952
- https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20147
- http://dx.doi.org/10.32604/phyton.2022.018552
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107122
Response 3：Thanks for your help of useful references and we have added these in our manuscript. (Lines 37 and 41 of the current manuscript)
Point 4: 4- Figure 5 needs to be more coherent, for example, the label looks larger than the symbols
Response 4：We have revised it. (Lines 259 of the current manuscript)
Point 5: 5- The discussion looks weak, try to improve it using the following hints:
- Summarize the key findings in clear and concise language
- Acknowledge when a hypothesis may be incorrect
- Place your study within the context of previous studies
- Discuss potential future research
- Provide the reader with a “take-away” statement to end the manuscript.
Response 5：Thanks for the valuable and helpful suggestions. We have rewritten the discussion following the comments. (Lines 267-293, 303-308 and 323-335 of the current manuscript)
Point 6: 6- Add future directions at the end of the conclusion
Response 6：Thanks for your comments and we had added future directions at the end of the conclusion. (Lines 346-351 of the current manuscript)
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your response and sending me the revised manuscript. I confirmed many points had been revised. I think, however, there are still unimproved points in this manuscript. I would like to ask the authors to revise the manuscript again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 4: In Discussion, authors discussed the phenomena in drought treatments. But I could not find the data in the ‘Results’, Figures and the Tables (L230-234, L239-240, L250-252, L260-263). Authors should show the data in ‘Results’, Figure and Table, and discuss with the data.
Response 4：We have added the R2 and P value in the result, and added figure label in this sentence to make it clearer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meaning that I commented might be not conveyed to you.
I commented authors discussed the phenomena without data. The sentence of ‘L260-263’ was not revised yet. For the sentence ‘The species with relatively large root biomass ratio values are Potentilla bifurca Linn, Melissilus ruthenicus (L.) Peschkova, which suggest these two species are more resistant to drought stress and can grow more roots to sustain growth. (L260-263; revised manuscript L330-332)’, I could not find the source of this discussion. Which data indicate? I didn’t mention from statistical analysis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 10: Authors said ‘Petunia Altai still not recovered in the first year after the disturbance’ (L252). I wondered this description. Because the results showed the coverage and abundance of Petunia Altai was higher in drought treatment than that of control. It is unclear the meaning of ‘disturbance’. Did it occur disturbance in the plots by drought treatment? And it is unclear the meaning of ‘recovery’. I really confused it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no answer. The revised manuscript still said ‘Heteropappus altaicus still not recovered in the first year after the disturbance’ (L312). During drought period (disturbance), the coverage and abundance of Heteropappus altaicus showed higher value than that of control. The abundance and coverage of Heteropappus altaicus decreased after removing the disturbance. In this phenomenon, did Heteropappus altaicus damage from drought treatment? If authors mention ‘recover from disturbance’, please explain why you use the word of ‘recover'.
Other points:
I think it is necessary to make allometric equations to estimate leaf and root biomass by non-destructive methods in the plots. I suggest authors describe more information for biomass estimation.
Thank you for adding the explanation of some words. But I still confuse some words. What is different between ‘RRCD’ and ‘change of cover’, ‘drought treatment’ and ‘drought plots’? “Response ratio of coverage to drought under the stress (RRCD) and response of abundance to drought under the stress (RRAD) were calculated as the relative differences between the control and drought treatment with the average value from the four measurements in 2013” (165-168). “Changes of cover (or abundance) means the relative difference of cover (or abundance) between the drought and control plots.” (260-261)
Although authors described ‘It is interesting that the coverage and abundance of Heteropappus altaicus was higher in drought treatment than that of control during the treatment period, but the abundance of Heteropappus altaicus was lower in drought treatment than that of control’ (L320-323), this description make readers confuse. It may be not enough explanations in this sentence. It is necessary to describe when the abundance of Heteropappus altaicus was lower in drought treatment than that of control.
The sentence is interrupted ‘Response ratio of abundance to drought in the recovery stage (RRAR)’ (L168-169). Please complete the sentence.
Authors should describe which figure indicate the results in the Chapter ‘3.4 Relationships between plant abundance and cover with functional trait’. For example, ‘The response ratio of coverage to drought under the stress (RRCD) and response of abundance to drought under the stress (RRAD) were significantly positively correlated with leaf biomass ratio (LBR)(Figure 5a, 5b)’ (L245-247).
Author Response
-
1-Point 4: In Discussion, authors discussed the phenomena in drought treatments. But I could not find the data in the ‘Results’, Figures and the Tables (L230-234, L239-240, L250-252, L260-263). Authors should show the data in ‘Results’, Figure and Table, and discuss with the data.
Response 4：We have added the R2 and P value in the result, and added figure label in this sentence to make it clearer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meaning that I commented might be not conveyed to you.
I commented authors discussed the phenomena without data. The sentence of ‘L260-263’ was not revised yet. For the sentence ‘The species with relatively large root biomass ratio values are Potentilla bifurca Linn, Melissilus ruthenicus (L.) Peschkova, which suggest these two species are more resistant to drought stress and can grow more roots to sustain growth. (L260-263; revised manuscript L330-332)’, I could not find the source of this discussion. Which data indicate? I didn’t mention from statistical analysis.
1-Response ：Thanks for the comments, we are sorry for misunderstanding the meaning. We did not show the detailed data because it has been published in a thesis (reference [42]), we have added the reference here, and give out the value for the two species, and mean value of the nine species to support our discussion. (Lines 345 of the current manuscript)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Point 10: Authors said ‘Petunia Altai still not recovered in the first year after the disturbance’ (L252). I wondered this description. Because the results showed the coverage and abundance of Petunia Altai was higher in drought treatment than that of control. It is unclear the meaning of ‘disturbance’. Did it occur disturbance in the plots by drought treatment? And it is unclear the meaning of ‘recovery’. I really confused it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no answer. The revised manuscript still said ‘Heteropappus altaicus still not recovered in the first year after the disturbance’ (L312). During drought period (disturbance), the coverage and abundance of Heteropappus altaicus showed higher value than that of control. The abundance and coverage of Heteropappus altaicus decreased after removing the disturbance. In this phenomenon, did Heteropappus altaicus damage from drought treatment? If authors mention ‘recover from disturbance’, please explain why you use the word of ‘recover'.
2-Response ：We have integrated this sentence with the sentence in the below comment as “However, Heteropappus altaicus in the plots that have experienced drought had a lower abundance and cover than it under control treatment in the first year after the disturbance, although the coverage and abundance of Heteropappus altaicus was higher under drought treatment than that of control during the treatment period. ” to eliminate the misunderstanding caused by “recover” (Lines 333-337 of the current manuscript). In addition, we have discussed “However, Heteropappus altaicus in the plots that have experienced drought had a lower abundance and cover than it under control treatment in the first year after the disturbance, although the coverage and abundance of Heteropappus altaicus was higher under drought treatment than that of control during the treatment period. The reason maybe because that the precipitation in 2014 was lower than that of 2013, especially in May and early June [31, 45]. The low precipitation in the beginning of the growing season may inhibit the germination of Heteropappus altaicus. In addition, although the abundance and cover of Heteropappus altaicus was higher under drought treatment, drought may decrease the seed production of this species, because its fruits ripened at the end of September. The seed germination and seedling recruitment may be reduced in the drought-treated plots because of the variations on seed production.” to reply the comments “During drought period (disturbance), the coverage and abundance of Heteropappus altaicus showed higher value than that of control. The abundance and coverage of Heteropappus altaicus decreased after removing the disturbance. What we want to express is that “Drought may affected the seed production of Heteropappus altaicus, and thus affected the germination of this species in the next year. (Lines 338-344 of the current manuscript)
Other points:
3-Point: I think it is necessary to make allometric equations to estimate leaf and root biomass by non-destructive methods in the plots. I suggest authors describe more information for biomass estimation.
3-Response ：Thanks for the helpful comments. We have estimated by absolute biomass from the whole plant without allometric equations. Ten individuals with similar size as the plants in the control plots of each plant species were selected in the natural steppe outside the plots. The plots were not destructed with data collection process. The size of selected individuals was similar with the plants in the plots. We think the absolute biomass is OK. We have added some details for biomass estimation as “The whole plant is divided into four parts: root, stem, leaf and reproductive organ, which are respectively put into different envelopes and dried at 65 ℃ for 48 hours to constant weight, and weighted as the biomass of each organ. The biomass of the whole plant was calculated as the sum of the biomass of four organs. (Lines 149, 157-161 of the current manuscript)”
4-Point: Thank you for adding the explanation of some words. But I still confuse some words. What is different between ‘RRCD’ and ‘change of cover’, ‘drought treatment’ and ‘drought plots’? “Response ratio of coverage to drought under the stress (RRCD) and response of abundance to drought under the stress (RRAD) were calculated as the relative differences between the control and drought treatment with the average value from the four measurements in 2013” (165-168). “Changes of cover (or abundance) means the relative difference of cover (or abundance) between the drought and control plots.” (260-261)
4-Response ：We have changed “‘change of cover” to RRCD and RRCR in Fig. 5, and unified “in the drought plots” to “under the drought treatment” to make it clearer (Lines 254-256of the current manuscript). In addition, we have rewritten “2.6 data analysis”, and used 4 equations to make it easier to understand. (Lines 172-178, 181-186 and 271-274 of the current manuscript)
5-Point:. Although authors described ‘It is interesting that the coverage and abundance of Heteropappus altaicus was higher in drought treatment than that of control during the treatment period, but the abundance of Heteropappus altaicus was lower in drought treatment than that of control’ (L320-323), this description make readers confuse. It may be not enough explanations in this sentence. It is necessary to describe when the abundance of Heteropappus altaicus was lower in drought treatment than that of control.
5-Response ：Thanks for the valuable comment. This comment was the same meaning with the above one. We integrated this sentence with the sentence in the above comment as “However, Heteropappus altaicus in the plots that have experienced drought had a lower abundance and cover than it under control treatment in the first year after the disturbance, although the coverage and abundance of Heteropappus altaicus was higher under drought treatment than that of control during the treatment period.” to make it more clear, and then discussed “ the coverage and abundance of Heteropappus altaicus was higher under drought treatment than that of control during the treatment period. The reason maybe because that the precipitation in 2014 was lower than that of 2013, especially in May and early June [31, 45]. The low precipitation in the beginning of the growing season may inhibit the germination of Heteropappus altaicus. In addition, although the abundance and cover of Heteropappus altaicus was higher under drought treatment, drought may decrease the seed production of this species, because its fruits ripened at the end of September. The seed germination and seedling recruitment may be reduced in the drought-treated plots because of the variations on seed production.” to explain the reason of this pattern. (Lines 333-344 of the current manuscript)
6-Point:. The sentence is interrupted ‘Response ratio of abundance to drought in the recovery stage (RRAR)’ (L168-169). Please complete the sentence.
6-Response ：Thank you, we have done it. (Lines 179 of the current manuscript)
7-Point: Authors should describe which figure indicate the results in the Chapter ‘3.4 Relationships between plant abundance and cover with functional trait’. For example, ‘The response ratio of coverage to drought under the stress (RRCD) and response of abundance to drought under the stress (RRAD) were significantly positively correlated with leaf biomass ratio (LBR)(Figure 5a, 5b)’ (L245-247).
7-Response ：Thanks for the helpful comments, we have added the Figure number in the text. (Lines 262-267 of the current manuscript)
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors address almost all my concerns (poin1 in the response file). However, I have concerns regarding the pipe installation for the soil moisture determination. Please include certain literature regarding this issue.
Referring to response 2, I still do not see any rain information which is the main source of the control experiment.
In the present form (Response 3) the materials and methods section seems to be more complete. The authors explained all terms which are reported in the results section.
Fig 5 now is clear.
Author Response
Point 1: The authors address almost all my concerns (poin1 in the response file). However, I have concerns regarding the pipe installation for the soil moisture determination. Please include certain literature regarding this issue.
Response 1：We have added a reference with the same method. (Lines 122 of the current manuscript)
Point 2: Referring to response 2, I still do not see any rain information which is the main source of the control experiment.
Response 2：We have only displayed the result of soil temperature and soil moisture here. However, we have added a sentence during the treatment period, 174.80 mm of precipitation was excluded under the drought treatment” in the method section following these helpful comments. (Lines 110-111 of the current manuscript)
In the present form (Response 3) the materials and methods section seems to be more complete. The authors explained all terms which are reported in the results section.
Fig 5 now is clear.
